Isaiah 7:14 - Why, I believe, the NABRE got it wrong

[Mickey]

Mickey – we are not required to accept the views of John Chrysostom on Isaiah 7:14

LOL!!!
With all due respect, I will accept the views of St John, St Irenaeus, and St Justin Martyr before I accept the your revisionist opinion.

See fordham.edu/halsall/source/chrysostom

If you care to start a thread to calumniate and insult one of the Church Fathers…you are free to do so. But there is no place for it here. Shame on you.

We are free to make our own judgments

And you have done so.

Now, I would agree with you if the NABRE did not include a footnote or explanation of its decision.

There is no need for a footnote when it is translated properly to begin with.

 

[pnewton]

Scratch and claw? I think not. The Fathers are very clear…I do not need to scratch and claw.

LOL!!!
With all due respect, I will accept the views of St John, St Irenaeus, and St Justin Martyr before I accept the your revisionist opinion.

Then why do you continue the very next post with inflammatory rhetoric and unfounded insults? Do you even know what a “revisionist” is? It is a noun that reflects a view of history, not linguistics. Your use of it is similar to the way I have seen “liberal” and “modernist” uses, sound and fury devoid of meaning.

Check a dictionary. It is a noun, not an adjective and does not have the meaning you are assigning to it.

 

[Mickey]

Then why do you continue the very next post with inflammatory rhetoric and unfounded insults?

Huh?

Do you even know what a “revisionist” is? It is a noun that reflects a view of history, not linguistics. Your use of it is similar to the way I have seen “liberal” and “modernist” uses,

A revisionist advocates revision. In this case, the correct and true meaning of “parthenos” was revised to reflect something other than “virgin”—which does damage to the theological and spiritual meaning of the text.

A group of modern revisionists… changed the translation of Isaiaih 7:14 to reflect a meaning that is misleading.

And yes…they are probably liberal too!

 

[pnewton]

Huh?
A revisionist advocates revision.

So now we are just making up definitions?

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/revisionist
thefreedictionary.com/revisionist
dictionary.reference.com/browse/revisionist

Not one of these suggest that this can apply to linguistics, or that it can be used as an adjective, as you have repeatedly done.

In this case, the correct and true meaning of “parthenos” was revised to reflect something other than “virgin”—which does damage to the theological and spiritual meaning of the text.

You do understand that the definition of “parthenos” is not at issue don’t you? Isaiah used “almah”, Hebrew, not Greek.

 

[Mickey]

So now we are just making up definitions?

Please knock it off newton. Your obstinancy is becoming tedious. You can defend the revisionists until the cows come home. I will defend the true meaning of Isaiah 7:14 as long as it takes.

Merriam

advocacy of revision (as of a doctrine or policy or in historical analysis)
— re·vi·sion·ist -nist\ **noun or adjective **

---

re·vi·sion
noun \ri-ˈvi-zhən
Definition of REVISION

1
a : an act of revising b : a result of revising : alteration

2
: a revised version

 

[Mickey]

Not one of these suggest that this can apply to linguistics, or that it can be used as an adjective, as you have repeatedly done.

Poppycock!

 

[Mickey]

You do understand that the definition of “parthenos” is not at issue don’t you? Isaiah used “almah”, Hebrew, not Greek.

My oh my. How many times have we been over this. “Almah”–Hebrew for “a young virginal woman” was correctly translated by the Hebrew (Septuagint) scholars as “parthenos” (virgin).

The NABRE revisionists decided to incorrectly use “young woman”.

The revisionists are sadly mistaken as shown by:

Church history
Sacred Tradition
Writings of the Holy Fathers

Got it?

 

[pnewton]

Please knock it off newton. Your obstinancy is becoming tedious.
— re·vi·sion·ist -nist\ noun or adjective

I stand corrected then. I guess I was wrong and that it can be used as a noun or adjective, within the rest of the guidelines of those definitions. This is a fairly new term for me and yours was the first time I ever saw it as an adjective. I do not see where this has ever been used in revising language though.

FYI - I am not:

1. Obstinate
2. Supportive of “revisionist” or any other cabal, label
3. Supportive of most of the NAB changes

I do:

1. Agree that parthenos is best translated virgin
2. Believe in the virgin birth.
3. See a reason for the translation in Isaiah being “maiden” in English.

 

[Mickey]

I do not see where this has ever been used in revising language though.

I suppose I am a bit sensitive because as a member of the Byzantine Catholic Church, (before my conversion to Holy Orthodoxy), I was forced to bear the revision of the Divine Liturgy. It was called “The Revised Divine Liturgy”. In this case (promulgated in 2007) the entire Liturgy was rendered gender neutral. Even the word “men” in the Creed—where it says “for us men and for our salvation” was changed to “for us and for our salvation”. Every instance of the word man, men, and mankind was eradicated!!! I was appalled.

And so I do not have much respect for the modern day revisionists.

I do:

1. Agree that parthenos is best translated virgin
2. Believe in the virgin birth.
3. See a reason for the translation in Isaiah being “maiden” in English.

Two outta three ain’t bad.

 

[pnewton]

In this case (promulgated in 2007) the entire Liturgy was rendered gender neutral. Even the word “men” in the Creed—where it says “for us men and for our salvation” was changed to “for us and for our salvation”.Two outta three ain’t bad.

Interestingly enough, the use of the gender neutral in Scripture goes against everything I believe about translating language. I can’t stand it because it is poor translation. Even the new Mass translation has me as a fan specifically because it is so darn literal.

It is even in my rebellous nature to sing this one carol, “Peace on the Earth, good will to men” even though our hymnal has “to all”. So let me add one more correction. I can be obstinate. Occasionally

 

[Mickey]

Interestingly enough, the use of the gender neutral in Scripture goes against everything I believe about translating language. I can’t stand it because it is poor translation. Even the new Mass translation has me as a fan specifically because it is so darn literal.

It is even in my rebellous nature to sing this one carol, “Peace on the Earth, good will to men” even though our hymnal has “to all”. So let me add one more correction. I can be obstinate. Occasionally

Me too!

 

[Bible_Reader]

If the NABRE is “revisionist”, then that “revisionism” is quite dated – certainly predating the Vulgate. We have the second century translations by Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion who use *neanis *(instead of parthenos) and into Aramaic as the Targums as ulemta.

Further, we have portions of Origen’s Hexapla, which was (a) the basic text relied on by Jerome, and (b) show that Origen considered the Septuagint as corrupt compared with Aquila, Symmachus and Theodotion.

Given all this, I humbly suggest that it was Jerome who was revisionist, and that the NABRE (which after all is translated primarily from the Hebrew) is originalist.

 

[Jerry-Jet]

Why was Jerome revisionist?

Is it possible that Jerome had access to other texts that indicated that parthenos was correct?

I think he did and therefore wasn’t revisionist.

 

[Bible_Reader]

Is it possible that Jerome had access to other texts that indicated that parthenos was correct?

I think he did and therefore wasn’t revisionist.

Do you have any evidence to support your view that Jerome had other texts for this verse? Does Jerome mention any other texts in his discussion of this verse?

We do know from Eusebius that Origen collected additional texts (see Eusebius, Church History, Book 3, Chapter 16), and we do know that Jerome heavily used Origen.

We do have parts of the Hexapla, and we have Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, and we have the Targums. These all predate Jerome.

Moreover the current Church relies heavily on Theodotion and Aquilla – and even our current “official” Deuterocanon (in particular, Greek portions of Daniel) exclusively quote Theodotion.

Similarly, our current “Septuagint” text (which is actually a copy of many different manuscripts written over hundreds of centuries) heavily uses Theodotion and Aquila. In addition to Greek Daniel, I will mention a few (but not all) additional examples:
much of our “Septuagint” Job and Jeremiah consists of insertions by Theodotion. Similarly, our “Septuagint” version of Deuteronomy is actually Aquila.

 

[po18guy]

Subsidiarity within the Church not the nation or culture*.* The bishops in America are not, and have never been declared “rebels”. There has not been even a hint of schism. Furthermore, regardless of our opinions, the Catholic Church does grant ecclessial conferences a role in the process of translation.

Not to imply rebellion, schism, or anything of the sort - only mentioning that, for the most part, US Bishops come from an infancy and youth steeped in American culture. Unless they have achieved a state of total holiness, traces of the surrounding culture come with them. That’s all.

As well, American English is substantially different from the English spoken in other nations, but as different as we seem to see in the NAB vs. other English language translations.

 

[Salvatore123]

There is something to be said for what St. Jerome did when he produced the Latin Vulgate.

Although the exact wording of that Vulgate was lost by the time the Clementine Vulgata was published as the standard for the Catholic Church until 1979/1986, consider that Jerome is a translation of original texts in which he was some 1000 years closer to those original texts than anyone else alive today.

Thus, although I am NOT suggesting we abandon or disregard Divino Afflante Spiritu or Liturgiam Authenticam - I would never suggest such a thing at any time - the case can be made that the “original manuscripts” that Jerome had access to were likely less filled with errors than any copies of supposed “original manuscripts” mentioned by the encyclicals.

The problem, I believe, is with wording. NO “original manuscripts” existed at the time of either encyclical. Original LANGUAGES existed, and we can study and take a chance at translated those. But original manuscripts? I think not.

So, after all these years, there is something to be said for Jerome’s Vulgate, and for the Clementine Vulgata as well.

 

[Salvatore123]

I found the following regarding the change of 7:14 in Isaiah written on a web-blog about bibles. It is an exchange between readers of that blog and Dr. Peter Williamson, co-editor of the Catholic Commentary on Sacred Scripture. Dr. Williamson’s blog comments are in dark red; the dark green represents comments that followed his blog, in which Dr. Williamson responds to several people who posted responses to his blog comments:

“Virgin” or “Young Woman”? Isa 7:14 - Dr. Peter Williamson

The first reading on March 25, the Feast of the Annunciation, is from Isaiah 7 and includes the famous words: “the virgin shall be with child, and bear a son and shall name him Emmanuel…” (Isa 7:14). This verse is important since Matthew 1:22-23 explains that Jesus’ birth by the Virgin Mary is a fulfillment of this prophecy:

All this took place to fulfill what the Lord had said through the prophet: ‘Behold, the virgin shall be with child and bear a son, and they shall name him Emmanuel,’ which means ‘God is with us.’

However, the recently released NABRE (New American Bible Revised Edition), like some other translations of Isa 7:14 (RSV, NRSV, and NJB) says “young woman” instead of “virgin.” This discrepancy in translations is confusing to many even well-informed Catholics. Raymond Arroyo, the host of EWTN’s popular “The World Over Live” recently expressed his perplexity at why the NABRE would make this change.

Before I did my graduate studies in Scripture, I thought that the RSV translation of “virgin” as “young woman” was simply due to scholarly disbelief in the virginal conception of Jesus, since I knew of biblical scholars who did not believe in miracles and did not acknowledge Jesus’ divinity.

It turns out it’s more complicated than that. The original Hebrew of Isaiah 7:14 uses the word almah, which really does mean “young woman” rather than “virgin.” On the other hand, the Septuagint version of Isaiah, the Greek translation that was used by Jews for a couple centuries before the birth of Christ, uses the more specific parthenos, which does mean virgin. At that time an unmarried Jewish almah would be assumed to be a parthenos, so the Septuagint translation was completely reasonable.

Although Matthew probably knew the Hebrew original, since he was writing in Greek (like the other authors of the New Testament), he naturally quotes the Greek Septuagint and says “the virgin [parthenos] shall be with child.”

So the simplest explanation is that the NABRE, RSV, NRSV, and NJB, correctly translate the Hebrew original as “young woman,” while the NAB (and the RSVCE and NIV), following Matthew 1:23, correctly translate the Septuagint version of Isa 7:14 as “virgin.”

But this raises the further questions of what Isaiah himself meant by this prophecy back in the eighth century B.C., and how it is that Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Isaiah. The Gospel of Matthew by Curtis Mitch and Ted Sri in the Catholic Commentary series explains the historical context of Isaiah 7:

This prophecy came in a period of crisis for the Davidic kingdom, as enemy armies threatened to invade Jerusalem and remove King Ahaz. With the dynasty’s survival in question, Isaiah foretold that an heir would be a sign that the kingdom would not end with Ahaz but would continue under God’s protection. Some might have seen in this prophecy a reference to Ahaz’s son, Hezekiah, who carried out a religious reform and delivered Judah from many evils, showing that God was still with the dynasty (2 Kings 18:1-6).

So what does this have to do with Jesus? Mitch and Sri continue:

However, Matthew sees a deeper level of meaning in the child of Isa 7:14… [because of the Septuagint’s use of parthenos]. Mary is the virgin who conceives and bears the royal son, Jesus. Matthew’s Gospel, therefore fittingly reveals Isa 7:14 as foretelling the virginal conception of the messiah.

In other words, when Matthew reads the word parthenos (“virgin”) in the Septuagint of Isaiah 7:14 in light of what he knows of the virginal conception of Jesus (a historical tradition known independently to Luke), he recognizes that God was saying something profound through Isaiah that went beyond the political crisis of the eighth century B.C. The LORD was speaking about a miraculous conception of the Messiah, the definitive heir to the throne of David, through the Holy Spirit (Matt 1:18). This is the way that God chose to be Emmanuel, “God with us” (Isa 7:14; 8:8; Matt 1:23). This is the way Isaiah’s extraordinary prophecies (Isa 9, 11) about this future ruler were to be fulfilled. In hindsight, in light of the further revelation of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection, this interpretation of Isa 7:14 makes perfect sense.

The Pontifical Biblical Commission uses the example Matthew’s interpretation of Isa 7:14 to illustrate the fuller sense of Scripture (The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church, II.B.3), which it defines “as a deeper meaning of the text, intended by God but not clearly expressed by the human author.

The fuller sense is an aspect of the spiritual sense, “the meaning expressed by the biblical texts when read, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, in the context of the paschal mystery of Christ and of the new life which flows from it.”

The fuller sense “has its foundation in the fact that the Holy Spirit, principal author of the Bible, can guide human authors in the choice of expressions in such a way that the latter will express a truth the fullest depths of which the authors themselves do not perceive. This deeper truth will be more fully revealed in the course of time-on the one hand, through further divine interventions which clarify the meaning of texts and, on the other, through the insertion of texts into the canon of Scripture.”

cont’d

 

[Salvatore123]

So, which translation of Isa 7:14 is correct? “the virgin shall be with child”? or “a young woman shall be with child”? Both can be defended reasonably. The second faithfully represents the Hebrew original of the Old Testament. The first faithfully represents the Septuagint and the way that the Gospel of Matthew and the Christian tradition interpret Isaiah’s prophecy in light of Jesus Christ. Whichever translation is used should be explained in a footnote.

Weighing the reasons, I think “the virgin shall be with child” is better suited to Catholic Bibles and to the use of Scripture in Christian liturgy. But obviously, some learned people, including the editors of the NABRE, think otherwise./

What follows are comments that were left by readers of the blog quoted above, along with Dr. Peterson’s responses. I think the exchanges are very interesting - the “back and forth” are reproduced in dark green:

Comment No. 1 - March 26, 2011 at 1:46 pm

“original Hebrew”

The Septuagint predates the Hebrew bible by a few centuries. The current “Hebrew” bible, based on the “Masoretic Texts” is both a re-translation and correlation between the Septuagint and early Hebrew sources.

The Masoretic Text, an attempt by the Jewish community to both, return to Hebraic origins, as well as remove/change language contained in the Old Testament that supports Jesus as the Christ.

The New Testament quotes the (Greek) Septuagint because it was “the” Jewish Bible at the time of Christ, and had been for 300 years. The LXX was created by the 12 Jewish tribes, together, as a combined text of agreed Jewish scripture. Therefore, it’s not so much the “original Hebrew”, as it is the “original Greek”.

Reply to Comment No. 1

Peter S. Williamson

March 27, 2011 at 5:28 pm

This reader is correct that the Masoretic text, the most authoritative version of the Hebrew Scriptures, reached its final form much later (10th century A.D.) than the Septuagint (second century B.C.).

However, the Masoretic text preserves the tradition of the original Hebrew writings of the Old Testament, what Jews call the Tanak. There is no question that these writings were first put down in Hebrew, the language of ancient Israel.

The Septuagint translation into Greek began in the third century BC among Greek-speaking Jews in Alexandria. There are indeed some places where it seems that the Septuagint preserves the original content more accurately than the Masoretic text, and scholars consult the Septuagint regarding uncertain readings in the Masoretic text.

However, I am unaware of any scholars who hold that the Hebrew Bible was altered from saying “virgin” to say “almah,” young woman. There are, however, some scholars who think that “virgin” is the preferred translation of “almah.”

Hope this helps.

Comment No. 2 - March 26, 2011 at 1:58 pm

Scripture; Tradition, and the Magisterium have already agreed that “virgin” is the state that Mary was in when she conceived Jesus via the Holy Spirit. So why did not those who choose to use “young women” when they updated the NAB?

Also, Mary herself stated that she did not understand because she had not know man.

Crazy world we live in!

Reply to Comment No. 2

Peter S. Williamson

March 27, 2011 at 5:34 pm

Your comment illustrates a problem with Christian versions of the Bible translating almah in Isa 7:14 as “young woman”: this translation easily confuses people, making them think that the virginal conception of Jesus is being questioned.

However, it is not. All of the translations that use “young woman” in Isa 7:14, still report the virginal conception of Jesus in Matt 1 and Luke 1. What they lose is a clear connection between what is said in Matt 1:23 about Jesus’ conception and the prophecy in Isa 7:14.

cont’d

 

[Salvatore123]

Comment No. 3 - March 27, 2011 at 10:40 am

I have the “new” NAB bible which was supposed to be corrected over the orignial edition(which I threw in the rubbish) hoping that it would be true to the Word AS the Holy Spirit gave us. Boy! was I ever let down. It seems that the American catolic church just doesn’t get it; so now, my question is: Where can I find a true version of the Bible that I can read and enjoy. I keep going back to the Good News (TEV) which came out in the 70′s (not the updated one) which just “happened” to come out as I finally met Jesus. His Word, the Bible, became alive to me after all my years of being a cradle Catholic fed in the Latin Mass without the Holy Spirit being allowed to fill us with His power and gifts. I have many versions of the Bible; but each one seems to be lacking in one way or another. God Bless. JMJ

Reply to Comment No. 3

Peter S. Williamson

March 27, 2011 at 5:41 pm

Dear JMJ,

I agree, there’s no perfect translation! The best thing is to keep a few of them and compare them. And periodically change which one you’re reading, so that what you read is fresh.

Actually, there’s one thing that’s even better than that–learn Greek and Hebrew and read the original!

But even more valuable than that is to seek the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit and to interpret Scripture in a manner not individualistically, but in unity with the way that the Church has interpreted it.

These steps won’t solve every problem, but they’ll help!

Reply

Comment No. 4 - March 28, 2011 at 3:32 am

Having only taken one foreign language, that being Deutsch, helps to understand that literal translations do not necessarily convey the true meaning of words. The word ‘jungfrau’ pulled apart, jung = young, frau = woman, young woman? Not in deutsch, jungfrau means virgin. So the Hebrew word translated into Deutsch would be jungfrau? and into English virgin?

My post is just a reminder that words or phrases can have a somewhat different meaning when put together, other than the simple meaning of the base parts (roots of the word).

So does the Hebrew word, taken apart mean ‘young woman’? But at the time it was written, the people who would have heard that word, would they have understood it to mean virgin?

Comment No. 6 - March 28, 2011 at 9:34 am

Just wanted to point out that the original RSV-CE has “young woman” while the RSV-2CE, published a few years back by Ignatius, follows the LXX “virgin”.

Comment No. 7 - March 28, 2011 at 9:48 am

At mass we profess “…by the power of the Holy Spirit he was born of the Virgin Mary…” in fact we all bow at this profession because of the profound appreciation we should have for the Incarnation. Yes, Mary was indeed a young woman, but she is much more than that. She is the spouse of the Holy Spirit. Let us not risk offending God by denying his great blessings upon Mary at every opportunity and especially in His Holy Word.

Comment No. 8 - March 28, 2011 at 12:14 pm

Just to let you know Mary is not the spouse of the Holy Spirit.
Can not the term “young women” be thought upon as also a virgin woman? Don’t most teenagers start complaining of feeling old after they have a baby? Yet before, they are young and carefree.

Comment No. 9 - March 28, 2011 at 10:13 am

I once used a concordance to look up the several Hebrew words that could mean “young woman.” In the case of “almah,” it seemed that she was a maiden, or a young woman who was still a virgin–but not an ever-virgin. thus, in Isiah it probably refered to a young fiance–
“The almah, being with child, shall give birth to a son and shall call his name ‘Emanuel’.”
Greek-speaking pre-Christian Jews considered “parthenos” to be a perfectly good translation to use for the Septuagint, and it wasn’t until the rise of anti-Christian apologetics that they insisted that it “really” meant young woman.

cont’d

 

[Salvatore123]

Comment No. 10 - March 28, 2011 at 10:31 am

Dr. Williams, Perhaps I am reading in a comment you did not make, but it seems that you are implying that the NABRE’s translation runs somehow against the Pontifical Biblical Commission’s interpretation of Isaiah 7:14. But as you will note, the intention of the NABRE translators was to produce a formal translation of the Old Testament text, and thus it would be seem more appropriate to follow the Commission’s guidelines for literal translation (which the Commission directly says is “distinct” from the fuller sense).

The more practical problem with equating almah with virgin (besides the fact that Isaiah uses the proper Hebrew word betulah (=”virgin”) five times in Isaiah (23:4; 23:12; 37:22; 47:1; 62:5) and only once uses almah) is that it runs against the direct sense in Isaiah 7:1-16 where Isaiah is reassuring King Ahaz about his military threats from Syria and the Northern Kingdom. If this verse is merely a reference to the birth of Jesus, it is quite a non-sequitir; if it is a reference to a contemporary birth (such as King Hezekiah), then it would be strange because we do not think of King Hewzekiah or other people from the period of King Ahaz as having virgin births.

The NABRE translators went to some trouble to carefully qualify their translation with an explanatory footnote:

Isaiah’s sign seeks to reassure Ahaz that he need not fear the invading armies of Syria and Israel in the light of God’s promise to David (2 Sm 7:12–16). The oracle follows a traditional announcement formula by which the birth and sometimes naming of a child is promised to particular individuals (Gn 16:11; Jgs 13:3). The young woman: Hebrew ‘almah designates a young woman of marriageable age without specific reference to virginity. The Septuagint translated the Hebrew term as parthenos, which normally does mean virgin, and this translation underlies Mt 1:23. Emmanuel: the name means “with us is God.” Since for the Christian the incarnation is the ultimate expression of God’s willingness to “be with us,” it is understandable that this text was interpreted to refer to the birth of Christ.

Reply to Comment No. 10

Peter S. Williamson

March 28, 2011 at 3:07 pm

Thanks for your helpful comment and the NABRE footnote.

I appreciate your comment because it underscores that the immediate context of Isa 7:14 is not about a virginal conception or the birth of Christ, but about a sign God is giving Ahaz that his reign will be protected from Aram and Israel who are seeking “regime change” in Judah. It’s thematic link to the birth of Christ is that David’s royal dynasty will indeed endure.

It is for this reason that the Biblical Commission views Matt 1:23 as a “fuller sense” of Scripture, since the historical-literal sense of the passage, even of the Septuagint, is different than the meaning that Matthew discovers there in light of the information that has been passed on to him about Jesus’ virginal conception and in light of his knowledge of who Christ is.

I do not regard the NABRE’s translation as contrary to the Biblical Commission document which did not address principles of translation for ecclesial and liturgical use. I mention their document to explain how the Commission understands Matthew’s assertion that the virginal conception of Jesus is a fulfillment of Isa 7:14 and to illustrate that NT fulfillment of the OT is not always as simple as people might imagine.

I do think there is a pastoral and catechetical and therefore liturgical advantage to having Christian translations of the Old Testament that maximally illuminate the connections between the OT and NT, connections that would have been apparent to the original audience of the NT writings.

Personally, I liked seeing a comment made in the above blog, which is almost identical to a point I made earlier in this thread: Catholics should not have to read a footnote to gain a knowledge about what might or might not have been intended in scripture. The systematic, uniform translation 7:14 was “virgin” and not “young woman”. This was the case until the newer translations stuck there heads out.

I think the saddest part is what Dr. Williamson alluded to - we have the precursor to the NABRE - the 1970 NAB - faithfully translating 7:14 into “virgin” (which, by the way, is the original Confraternity Bible OT translation I so ardently attest to). Then, we see a revision of the NAB that is supposed to bring us back closer to the original. Well, I think the blog and the comments make it pretty clear that the Septuagint correctly translated the Hebrew word into “virgin” - how else would they have known to use “parthenos”, when that word means nothing other than “virgin”?